anyone brave enough to answer this question?

[Jose]

8) Since the Christian God has been proven an impossible existence, and since Jesus has been proven to not be the Messiah... #2 has been done, #3 has been done, #4 has been done, #5 assumes the existence of God (#4 and #3) which has been proven false, #7 has been done, #1 relies on #2 and #7 being true so it not applicable, and #6 depends on the arguments.

All in all, only #6 is left before we manage to do #8... at whch point, you'll have a real problem on your hands.

 

 

The question is, will you accept the evidence or will you continue in your belief, knowing that it's false?

 

KH> You have failed in your attempt.

 

[SkepticOfBible]

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true.

 

Prove to me that Mormonism is not from God and that it's not true. Or prove to me that Catholics or JW are the false christians and you are the true one.

[Guest Guest]

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true. what made you stop believing that Jesus is the Son of God. Was it because He hadn't answered a prayer? What could it have been? Maybe He was trying to see your faith ? or did you really accept Him as your Lord and savior or maybe you didn't recieve Him in your heart. really think aboput this and prove to me how it is not true that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[Jose]

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true. what made you stop believing that Jesus is the Son of God. Was it because He hadn't answered a prayer? What could it have been? Maybe He was trying to see your faith ? or did you really accept Him as your Lord and savior or maybe you didn't recieve Him in your heart. really think aboput this and prove to me how it is not true that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kryten]

Kevin,

Do you now want to switch to the subject of whether the bible is valid and authored by a perfect being? Okay. You said a few posts up that one of the geneologies is from Mary. Why do all bibles say Joseph?? That right there is an error, one that YOU inserted to avoid another, more glaring error.

Then tell me this, if you can-- who told David to conduct the census??

Then tell me, does God tempt people? (Please provide the verse to back it up.)

 

Your holy book is one contradiction after another. I can cite countless errors that will force you to cast common sense and reason far, far away in order to rationalize. And then you tell us that we must believe the book is from a perfect God in order to avoid being tortured by fire forever and ever, amen. What kind of cruel, illogical god is that? One in your own image, I suppose.

 

You have three questions to answer. Go check out JP Holding to get your answers while we wait here.

[crazy-tiger]

Shall I show the problems with those?

 

1) There is no record of any physical details of Jesus, so even if we found his body, it cannot be proven beyond doubt that it is the body of Jesus. Oh, and you would always doubt it no matter how compelling the argument since you believe he ressurected so there would be no body to find... KH> Of course we have records of physical details of Jesus - especially his execution. Secondly, it may be difficult to prove beyond doubt that it was the body of Christ but I was asked and I said prove it. Proving such would indeed destroy Christianity.

Really? How tall was he? What skin colour? What hair colour? What body size? What weight? Where's the sample of genetic material that we can compare a body to?

 

There is NO way to prove beyond doubt that a body is the body of Jesus...

By the way, no body does not prove the resurrection... There is no body of my mother, yet no-one would claim she resurrected.

 

KH> First, false analogy. Second, you're right, "no body" by itself conclusively proves the Resurrection. But coupled with even more data the case emerges.

If the lack of a body proves that someone resurrected, then the lack of my mothers body proves she resurrected.

 

If you disagree with that, then the lack of a body fails to prove a resurrection... hence, the lack of Jesus's body in no way proves he resurrected.

2) The only way to do that would be to do #1... or show that Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

3) Proving the non-existence of something requires total knowledge... or a impossibility of existence.

 

KH> It does not require total knowledge to prove a negative. It would take total knowledge to disprove some negatives but not others. "There are no zebras in my bathtub". I just looked. Nope, not there. If the zebras were invisible, that would be more difficult.

Now prove there are no zebras in any bathtub...

 

Of course, since you asked us to prove the non-existence of something, and since that just happens to be one of the negatives that require total knowledge to prove, I have to wonder just what the point of the "zebras in bathtubs" bit was all about... except an attempt at a red herring.

Strangely enough...

 

4) has been done... Since the God of Christian Theism perfect Justice AND perfect Mercy, the God of Christian Theism cannot exist as Justice and Mercy are contradictory concepts... thus, anything embodying them is inherently contradictory and does not exist.

 

KH> "All merciful"and "all just" would merely mean God's perfect ability to know when and how to administer mercy and when and how to administer justice.

Ahem... did I say "all" merciful or "all" just? No... so why are you answering as though I did?

5) It's a damn silly requirement since reality doesn't prove the existence of God, so disproving reality wouldn't disprove God...

What it does do is show that you have the cart before the horse.

 

KH> If God is supposed to be real, but reality doesn't exist, then God wouldn't exist. What is silly is the whole notion of disproving reality. But many Hindus try to do just that. One would have to exist to show there is no existence - which is contradictory.

And since reality existing doesn't prove your God exists, why would someone need to prove reality doesn't exist to prove your God doesn't exist?

 

You've stuck that one in so that your God cannot be disproven, but since it's been shown that Reality doesn't equal your God, insisting on it shows you just want to stop anyone disproving your God, rather than following the evidence where it leads.

6) to prevent me from wasting my time, why not present these classic arguments?

 

KH> We'll start with one. There are many forms of the Cosmological Argument. Let's start with the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

Oh, you mean this?

 

1) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

 

#1 has not been proven and there are indications that it could be wrong.

#2 certainly has not been proven

#3 is based on #s 1 and 2 and is thus an assumption.

 

It's refuted.

7) He was not of the blood-line of David through Solomon... the Messiah can only be of the blood-line of David through Solomon. Jesus was not the Messiah.

 

KH> Yes he was - legally through the house of Joseph, and physically (and of necessity due to the virgin birth) through Mary.

Jeconiah is in Josephs blood-line... Thanks to Gods curse, no offspring of Jeconiahs blood-line has a legal claim to the throne of David, and a legal claim to the throne of David is part of being the Messiah. Thus Jesus is not the Messiah through Joseph.

Solomon is NOT in the blood-line through Mary... since the Messiah is to be of the blood-line of David through his son, Solomon, Jesus is not the Messiah through Mary.

 

As I said, Jesus was not the Messiah.

8) Since the Christian God has been proven an impossible existence, and since Jesus has been proven to not be the Messiah... #2 has been done, #3 has been done, #4 has been done, #5 assumes the existence of God (#4 and #3) which has been proven false, #7 has been done, #1 relies on #2 and #7 being true so it not applicable, and #6 depends on the arguments.

All in all, only #6 is left before we manage to do #8... at whch point, you'll have a real problem on your hands.

 

 

The question is, will you accept the evidence or will you continue in your belief, knowing that it's false?

 

KH> You have failed in your attempt.

You ignore the evidence, prefering to believe in something that is false...

[Jose]

KH>

 

1). We have every reason to believe Jesus is historical and Mthras is mythical.

Name your reasons, please.

 

2). Early Mithraism was shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what they believed and have no early literature on them.

This does not make them wrong, while you, however, haven't done your homework very well.

 

3). Mithraism was adopted and adapted by the Romans and flourished in the 3rd century AD. It was a military cult.

BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong. There are references to Mithras as a member of the Iranian pantheon 4,000 years ago. Do your homework.

 

4). Dr. Ronald Nash, an expert on Hellenism and mystery cults, said Mithraism as we know it borrowed Christian elements, not the other way around.

Appeal to Authority

 

5). We don't find in the historical Christ the mythological elements of Mithraism, e.g. Mithras was born from a rock while carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

What fucking bible are you reading? Virgin birth, prophesied by a new star's appearance, walked on water, changed water into wine, raised people from the dead, was ressurected... those don't sound mythical to you? You need serious medication if being born from a rock sounds more mythical than ascending bodily into heaven.

 

And besides, you STILL have it wrong. In the Persian pantheon, Mithras was born to Anahita, who was "the virgin mother" that was worshipped as a fertility goddess.

 

This whole post reeks of Special Pleading. Do your homework.

[willybilly30]

it is not from god because if it was god would make sure everyone knows it

 

 

 

 

 

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true.

[SkepticOfBible]

KH> I think it would be a good exchange and will consider it. But I spelled out what I would like to debate for anyone interested.

 

1). Is Christianity Credible?

 

Sorry I did not see this response

 

Since there are so many people out there who call them christians, eg JW, Mormons, RCC, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Church, I personally think it will be wrong for you to represent all of them, since you are not agreement with them on a lot of issues

 

How about this for a title

 

Is Protestant Christianity Credible?

 

Are you in agreement of the various sub topics that I had proposed

 

Btw you still haven't told us what denomination do you follow?

[Kryten]

KH> First, the Bible is one (albeit major one) consideration that informs my worldview. And where am I required to do a miracle?

Your Inerrant Life-Guide From God says YOU WILL do miracles. It's in the new testament, or haven't you read that far yet?

 

Or all you all talk and no faith??

 

KH> I may be. I may lack faith. . . I am flawed.

GLORY!! We agree on something!

 

You scoff at the idea that Jesus wasn't real, yet you provide ZERO evidence to the contrary-- then you try to get US to show you his body in order to refute your claims!

 

KH> I offered the New Testament documents and non-New Testament Greco-Roman writers.

You offered church documents DESIGNED to make people believe their fables, and NOT QUESTION anything therein.

And, to their credit, it's working on you.

[crazy-tiger]

Hey Kevin... you wanted a refutation of Kalaam Cosmological Argument?

 

Try here...

 

 

 

 

That's #'s 1 to 7 done... by your own admission, I've just managed to prove your "subjective experience and relationship with Christ has no objective referent."

 

Do have a nice day...

[Ouroboros]

prove christianity is true. prove the bible is from god.

 

Can I ask you something? Prove to me that it's not from God and that it's not true.

You're pretty much admitting your lack of proof of God then, aren't ya?

 

Your counter argument to the question is the throw the question back, and that leaves us where?

 

Is that how you respond to questions on your math tests in school too? Or to your boss? With a question back instead of stepping up to the plate and take on the challenge. Chicken.

[Mythra]

Our philosophy-man is all claim and no back-up.

 

He can't even prove the simplest of things. Like providing a believable explanation as to why Flavius Josephus knew of John the Baptist, (who did nothing spectacular besides piss-off Herod) - and yet knew nothing of Jesus the miracle man (who caused such a stir that he was the talk of all of Palestine)

[Mythra]

Awful lot of talk of proving things here. And, most of the shit we talk about can't be "proven" or "disproven."

But, christianity can sure as hell be disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who isn't afraid to do their homework can resolve in their own mind that it's bullshit. We're all living proof of that.

 

Trouble, is, christians, as a rule, are only willing to read things that will strengthen their faith. And, Robert Price or Earl Doherty (or tons of other materials that are available) sure won't do that.

[mwc]

By the way, no body does not prove the resurrection... There is no body of my mother, yet no-one would claim she resurrected.

 

I claim that your mom was resurrected (she's gotta be better than jesus and we have at least one eyewitness for her existing).

 

KH> "All merciful"and "all just" would merely mean God's perfect ability to know when and how to administer mercy and when and how to administer justice.

How about a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful being? Can one exist? Nope. If you know the future perfectly then that is the future that must occur. An all powerful being should be able to do anything though. However, if this being were to use its power to alter the future then the future that it knew prior to this change was not, in fact, the future at all since it never came to be. Since the future cannot be altered and allow this being to maintain the claim of all-knowing then that being cannot be all-powerful as well as it lacks the ability to make changes that can affect its already known future. This effectly remove free-will from this being as it must do what it already knows it must do to avoid violating its own trait of being all-knowing.

 

This cannot be explained away, as you did in the above quote, of this being knowing when to excersize being all-knowing or all-powerful. These are its very traits, the essence if you will, of this being. While this being may choose to not use its power to alter the future, in order to maintain consistency with its all-knowing trait this does not erase the very real lack of free-will that this introduces. This being knows that it cannot alter the future, despite its power, without comprimising its all knowing trait. This effectively renders this being impotent because the very act of excersizing its power is self-destructive. That this being cannot overcome and resolve this situation is another proof that it is not all-powerful.

 

mwc

[Mythra]

From the book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris:

 

It takes a certain kind of person to believe what no one else believes. To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence (and which therefore cannot be justified in conversation with other human beings) is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. Clearly there is sanity in numbers....Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death, and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad? Rather, is there any doubt that he would be mad? The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible? [p.72-73]

[Amethyst]

That is a great book btw, I highly recommend it to anyone who is questioning.

[white_raven23]

From the book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" by Sam Harris:

 

Thanks SO much Mythra.

 

I was just AT Borders yesterday, saw this book, but didn't pick it up.....NOW I have to go back today and get it. Because NOW you've tempted me beyond my ability to control.

 

*sigh*

 

Granted, I'm already firmly and happily ex-c.......but you never know, there could be something in the book that I could quote to someone doubting that will encourage them to seek their own truth.

 

Other than that, the book will be a pleasant mental mastrubation for me......

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh Yes!

 

 

 

 

Oooooh!!!

 

 

 

 

 

Whooohaa!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What? It's a shampoo commercial.........what did you think it was?

[Mythra]

Hooboy. That was interesting. Now I need to go take a cold shower.

 

 

If you want to read more exerpts of this book, see Earl Doherty's review of it on jesuspuzzle.org.

[Mr. Neil]

What? It's a shampoo commercial.........what did you think it was?

Just stay the hell away from this shampoo.

 

[Taphophilia]

 

1). We have every reason to believe Jesus is historical and Mthras is mythical.

 

We understand that Mithras is mythical.

 

2). Early Mithraism was shrouded in secrecy and we don't know what they believed and have no early literature on them.

 

Mithraism was not shrouded in secrecy. The rites of their worship was "Mysteries" from the Greek word for "initiation" That's why they are called Mystery Religions, not because they were shrouded in mystery. Early Christians established the dominance of their relgion by exterminating Mithras faithful, razing his temples, and burning his sacred texts.

 

3). Mithraism was adopted and adapted by the Romans and flourished in the 3rd century AD. It was a military cult.

 

Pompay imported Mithraism into Rome around 70 BC after defeating the Cilician pirates. Mithras appears epigraphically in the circles of the Roman emperor in the first century AD - around the time with the first canonical Christian Gospels were written. Statues of the god were present in Rome by 101 AD. Chrsitian Apologist Justin Martyr denounces the devil, in his first Apologia, for sending a god so similar to Jesus.

 

4). Dr. Ronald Nash, an expert on Hellenism and mystery cults, said Mithraism as we know it borrowed Christian elements, not the other way around.

 

Mithras was originally Persian. Before Rome. When the Christianity was new Mithras and Mithraism were already ancient. Worshiped for centuries as God's Messenger of Truth, Mithras was long revered by the Persians (Zoroastrianism) and the Indians (see the Vedic literature). In Persia Mithras fades into prehistory 3000 BC.

 

5). We don't find in the historical Christ the mythological elements of Mithraism, e.g. Mithras was born from a rock while carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.

 

Mythras was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing.

 

Every year in Rome, in the middle of winter, the Son of God was born one more, putting an end to darkness. Every year at first minute of December 25th the temple of Mithras was lit with candles, priests in in white garments celebrated the birth of the Son of God and boys burned incense.

 

He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior," "Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God."

 

His followers kept the Sabbath holy, eating sacramental meals in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

 

Baptism in the blood of the bull (taurobolium) -- early

Baptism "washed in the blood of the Lamb" -- late

Baptism by water [recorded by the Christian author Tertullian]

 

Mithraic rituals brought about the transformation and Salvation of His adherents -- an ascent of the soul of the adherent into the realm of the divine. From the wall of a Mithraic temple in Rome: "And thou hast saved us by shedding the eternal blood."

 

The great Mithraic festivals celebrated His birth (at the winter solstice) and His death and resurrection (at the spring solstice)

 

Sources:

 

POCM

 

"Drudgery Devine" by Jonathan Smith

 

"Backgrounds of Early Chritianity" by Everett Furguson

 

"The Ancient Mysteries: A Source book" by Marvin W. Meyer (Editor)

 

"The Riddle of Resurrection, Dying and Rising Gods in the Ancient Near East"

by Tryggve Mettinger

[Mythra]

Thanks for answering that, Taph. Good work.

 

m.

[white_raven23]

Niiiice Taph!

 

Kevin will likely pretend it's not there though............

 

debating 10 years, and doesn't even know the history of the biggest thorn in the Jesus myth's side?

 

Interesting.

 

I suppose that's possible.......OH! Wait! I'm assuming those 10 years of debate included research into the topics being debated!

 

I'm such a square! Me! Thinking Kevin would actually do research to support his positions!!!!!!

 

 

I should know better by now!

[crazy-tiger]

By the way, no body does not prove the resurrection... There is no body of my mother, yet no-one would claim she resurrected.

 

I claim that your mom was resurrected (she's gotta be better than jesus and we have at least one eyewitness for her existing).

Sweet... she was all-knowing too. (well, she knew when I'd been bad...)

KH> "All merciful"and "all just" would merely mean God's perfect ability to know when and how to administer mercy and when and how to administer justice.

How about a perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful being? Can one exist? Nope. If you know the future perfectly then that is the future that must occur. An all powerful being should be able to do anything though. However, if this being were to use its power to alter the future then the future that it knew prior to this change was not, in fact, the future at all since it never came to be. Since the future cannot be altered and allow this being to maintain the claim of all-knowing then that being cannot be all-powerful as well as it lacks the ability to make changes that can affect its already known future. This effectly remove free-will from this being as it must do what it already knows it must do to avoid violating its own trait of being all-knowing.

 

This cannot be explained away, as you did in the above quote, of this being knowing when to excersize being all-knowing or all-powerful. These are its very traits, the essence if you will, of this being. While this being may choose to not use its power to alter the future, in order to maintain consistency with its all-knowing trait this does not erase the very real lack of free-will that this introduces. This being knows that it cannot alter the future, despite its power, without comprimising its all knowing trait. This effectively renders this being impotent because the very act of excersizing its power is self-destructive. That this being cannot overcome and resolve this situation is another proof that it is not all-powerful.

 

mwc

You know... just being omnipotent is enough to show it can't exist.

 

If it's omnipotent, it can do anything. (try to follow this, Kevin... it requires logic and reason, so you're gonna have trouble with it)

If it can do anything, it can (just to pluck a random example out of the air) create a rock so heavy it can't lift it. Of course, since it's omnipotent, it can lift any rock no matter how heavy... otherwise it wouldn't be omnipotent. (with me so far Kevin?)

But, if it can lift any rock no matter how heavy, then it can't create one too heavy for it to lift... which means it's not omnipotent. (oops... bet you didn't see that one coming...)

 

Ergo, an omnipotent being is proven not to exist, and since the Christian God is omnipotent, the Christian God is proven not to exist. (which is just what you asked us to prove)

 

Now, if you want, you can say that God isn't omnipotent... that's your perogative. Only problem is, that makes God less than a God... and anything less than a God, isn't God.

 

 

Omnipotence is a killer... it's a self-refuting trait. Any religion that claims their God has that trait is automatically showing that their God doesn't exist.

And that includes yours...

 

 

 

Of course, since your "requests" are all proven false once your God is proven not to exist, can I assume you'll be changing your mind and accepting that your belief was mistaken?

[white_raven23]

 

Now, if you want, you can say that God isn't omnipotent... that's your perogative. Only problem is, that makes God less than a God... and anything less than a God, isn't God.

 

 

OR......our world was created and managed by something less than a god, but a lot more powerful than ourselves........using this logic, that would mean that christianity is based entirely on a mass "curl up, whimper and submit to the power we fear" mentality.

 

Instead of being able to look this being in the face, and say: "There were things you did right, but there were also things you did wrong in my opinion." And be willing to stand by that belief despite the potential for annihilation. Which would be a more blessed result.......because if the christians were right, all that lies ahead is an eternity of stroking the volitile ego of this super-being.

 

I'd rather side on the truth, and cross my fingers that a being more powerful than this supposed one will choose to prevent the destruction and eternal punishment of those who chose reason, logic, and honesty over ignorance, lies, and deceit.